Britain cuts aid to Ebola-stricken Sierra Leone

Obviously for Britain Ebola (and certainly some little country in Africa) is not as important as bombing the shit out of Iraq.

Ebola crisis: 'Britain has not abandoned Sierra Leone' – but cuts bilateral aid by a fifth

Reductions in the amount of money sent to help the government of Ebola-stricken Sierra Leone are not damaging efforts to combat the virus, said Justine Greening, as she insisted that Britain remained the country's biggest ally

Justine Greening addresses a press conference during The Ebola Donors Conference at Lancaster House Photo: GETTY IMAGES

the Telegraph,

1 October, 2014

Justine Greening, the international development secretary, has been forced to deny that cuts in Britain's bilateral aid programme have hampered the response to the Ebola epidemic.

Britain's bilateral aid to Sierra Leone and Liberia – the money that is given directly to the government – has been reduced by £14.5 million for 2014-15, compared to the previous year. The International Development Committee on Thursday published its report into "Recovery and development" in the two nations worst hit with Ebola, and said the study, began in March, showed "the dangers of ignoring the least developed countries in the world."

"The spread of Ebola has demonstrated the importance that governments of developing countries need to attach to health system strengthening," the report states. "The weak state of the health system in both countries has greatly reduced the effectiveness of the response to Ebola."

Five people are currently being infected with Ebola every hour in Sierra Leone, and over 600 people have died so far.

Liberia is the worst-hit nation, with almost two-thirds of the 3,338 deaths in West Africa.

Quarantined girlfriend of US Ebola victim says sheets are still on bed 02 Oct 2014

But Ms Greening denied that there had been a cut in actual funding.

"The UK is the largest financial donor to Sierra Leone and over the last few years our aid programme has grown in size rather than reduce," she said.

Speaking at a conference in London on Thursday which was called to raise money to fight Ebola, she said that the total amount of money spent in Sierra Leone was increasing – even though the direct, bilateral funds from Britain were being cut. The money – £74 million for 2014-15 – was instead being given to NGOs and bodies such as the UN to spend in the country, she said.

Last year her department planned to spend £81m in the country, but only delivered £68m of funding.

"And I think you can see further support arriving to Sierra Leone in terms of this £125 million package today. So I think there is no question of support to Sierra Leone that is not only broad based and ongoing, but when crisis hits we are prepared to scale it up significantly."

When pressed on why Britain was switching from bilateral support to funding multilateral programmes, she said: "It's important for countries like Sierra Leone, like Nigeria and Liberia to have their health systems strengthened, we've seen that today, and we see how short sighted a view it would be to fail to help those countries develop their health systems."

A spokesman for DfID, the department for international development, defended the decision, and said that Britain's response to the crisis was "something to be proud of".

"I think the important point is that multilateral spend, in some cases, is most effective," she said. "Are we abandoning Sierra Leone? Certainly not. In fact it is the total opposite."

But Sir Malcolm Bruce, chair of the International Development Committee, said DfID had given no explanation for the reduction of its bilateral funding.

"The point we were making is that the bilateral programme has been cut," he told The Telegraph.

"As a Committee we recognise that some work must be done through agencies. But DfID have not yet explained the benefits of this. What was the case for cutting the programme of bilateral aid and diverting it to multilateral? We need to prioritise further funding for health programmes."

And Sir Malcolm added that he was concerned that the £125 million, pledged by Britain to help its former colony, must be used to create a lasting legacy of health care, rather than spent on flying experts in and then out.

"The amount is a lot more than would normally be spent in the country," he said. "And I'd like to think that it will be used not only to bring Ebola under control, but also to have a lasting impact on the health of the country."